00:02:36 -!- araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:03:48 araujo [~araujo@gentoo/developer/araujo] has joined #scheme
00:04:12 -!- pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
00:09:16 -!- kingless [~kingless@108-65-61-54.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi]
00:13:52 -!- djcb [~djcb@a88-114-88-233.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:19:43 ah, so CL then.
00:28:11 -!- pygospa [~TheRealPy@kiel-5f769d4f.pool.mediaWays.net] has quit [Disconnected by services]
00:28:18 bremner: Does it resemble CL more than Scheme? After some superficial hacking, I'd say so.
00:28:24 pygospa [~TheRealPy@kiel-4dbec9b5.pool.mediaWays.net] has joined #scheme
00:28:48 Yes, IIRC, it's a lisp-2.
00:29:02 It's not
00:29:07 Really?
00:29:10 lisp-1
00:29:19 Then it resembles more scheme than CL.
00:29:38 lisp-1 vs lisp-2 is a very superficial difference
00:30:07 Well, it uses [] like scheme too.
00:30:17 no
00:30:20 separating functions and variables is superficial?
00:30:22 [] in clojure means vectors
00:30:25 not lists
00:30:41 Yes but it requires vectors at the same place you would write [] in scheme.
00:30:44 some scheme implementations use [] as a synonym for ()
00:31:11 pjb: But scheme doesn't require anything, they are interchangeable
00:31:21 Bah! Anyways, I'm totally uninterested by clojure.
00:31:43 I don't care much about it either
00:33:05 drdo: lisp-1 in the sense that e.g. (def foo (fn ...)) suffices to define functions as well as variables?
00:33:19 klutometis: some things resemble Scheme, some things resemble CL.
00:33:45 klutometis: lisp-1 in the sense that there's only one namespace
00:34:04 dnolen_: Indeed; it's funny to me, for instance, that fun resembles case-lambda.
00:34:08 s/fun/fn/
00:34:15 klutometis: defn is not primitive in Clojure.
00:35:21 Also, clojure still has macros like in CL, big mistake
00:35:32 And no, hygenic macros are not nice either
00:36:46 "The Clojure conditional system is based around nil and false, with nil and false representing the values of logical falsity in conditional tests - anything else is logical truth."
00:36:58 Nice; why the fuck would they create a ternary boolean?
00:37:08 klutometis: java
00:37:09 drdo: they are more hygenic then CL macros, less tedious than syntax-rules IMHO.
00:37:14 drdo: Ah, of course.
00:37:31 dnolen_: Or you can just have operatives like in kernel and be better than any of that
00:38:23 drdo: sure, but is Kernel a standards compliant Scheme ?
00:38:32 What?
00:38:48 drdo: so not familiar w/ kernel, what is that?
00:38:51 sorry I mean.
00:38:59 http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jshutt/kernel.html
00:39:08 it's a reasearch toy language with fexprs
00:39:18 smtlaissezfaire [~smtlaisse@user-387hbid.cable.mindspring.com] has joined #scheme
00:39:27 and "better" is not universally agreed-to here :)
00:39:31 -!- samth is now known as samth_away
00:39:34 drdo: yeah so it's not Scheme.
00:39:47 dnolen_: Clojure is not scheme?
00:40:01 samth_away: What are the arguments against?
00:40:04 drdo: no I thought we were comparing Clojure and Scheme :)
00:40:11 against fexprs?
00:40:21 dnolen_: Yes, i'm saying that i think it's a mistake for cloure not to have fexprs
00:40:25 *clojure
00:40:27 -!- fbass [~zac@75-173-86-142.albq.qwest.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:40:30 Or any new lisp for that matter
00:40:32 that they're a terrible language feature that destroys any ability to reason about your program
00:40:41 samth_away: lol?
00:40:51 um, very serious
00:41:04 Please explain how they do that
00:41:09 (in a way that macros don't)
00:41:26 see mitch wand's paper "the theory of fexprs is trivial"
00:41:41 drdo: yeah I looked at kernel, yucky syntax.
00:41:44 in general, in a system w/ fexprs (f (+ 1 1)) != (f 2)
00:42:11 -!- jonrafkind [~jon@crystalis.cs.utah.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:42:14 or rather (lambda (f) (f (+ 1 1))) != (lambda (f) (f 2))
00:43:21 every scheme compiler i know optimizes the first to the second
00:43:29 but if you have fexprs, you can't
00:43:34 of course you can
00:43:40 It's called partial evaluation
00:44:04 no, that's not the case, i gave you the whole program
00:44:20 ?
00:44:38 you can't do that optimization unless you know the call sites of that lambda
00:44:43 which you don't, in general
00:45:16 if you want to say that fexprs can be compiled effectively given (a) the whole program and (b) a mythically-powerful partial evaluator
00:45:22 then i might believe
00:45:50 but that still doesn't mean *I* as a programmer don't want to be able to reason about my programs without performing whole-program partial-evaluation
00:46:06 That doesn't require you to do that
00:46:20 it certainly does
00:46:28 Of course you can't know for sure that (f (+ 1 1)) = (f 2)
00:46:33 But you can't with macros either
00:46:48 People can write bad code whatever you do
00:46:51 but you can (a) if you know that f is not a macro, as in the case i gave
00:46:57 or (b) after expansion
00:47:01 drdo: eh? macros must expand.
00:47:10 neither of which is available for fexprs
00:47:12 but you (a) if you know that f is not a fexpr
00:47:24 but you only know that if you know all call sites of that lambda
00:47:32 which you don't if you don't have the whole program
00:47:42 that lambda isn't realistic code
00:47:58 what?
00:48:14 Coming up with contrived examples isn't very productive when discussing optimizations
00:48:22 that is *not* a contrived example
00:48:32 drdo: come on now :) the basic structure of that lambda will occur in many programs.
00:48:41 are you seriously claiming that you don't take functions as arguments in any of your programs?
00:49:44 *samth_away* is now actually away
00:50:25 -!- littlebobby [~bob@unaffiliated/littlebobby] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat]
00:50:29 dherman [~dherman@32.174.255.89] has joined #scheme
00:51:46 aidalgol [~user@114-134-7-23.rurallink.co.nz] has joined #scheme
00:52:40 I had misread your code
00:52:51 That example means nothing
00:52:57 You can't even do that with macros
00:57:57 klutometis: in anycase, I do a lot of Clojure, I ported miniKanren from The Reasoned Schemer to Clojure which I thought would be considerably more difficult given lack of TCO etc. But it turned out to quite pleasant. In general I find that Clojure does what it can to support Scheme's recursive emphasis, and on some fronts like FP it takes the paradigm a bit further.
00:59:04

drdo, the point is, you can after macro expansion, and you can't pass a macro to a lambda, so `f' is guaranteed to not be a macro.
00:59:25 DT``: Exactly, macros aren't first class, that's a problem
00:59:28

if `+' has the usual binding, you can partially evaluate it.
00:59:39

with fexprs, you can't be sure.
01:00:11 dnolen_: Interesting; it looks interesting, to be sure. I don't know if it will replace Scheme anytime soon as my favorite hacking language; but maybe the clojure advocates will make persuasive arguments at the meetup tonight.
01:01:04 DT``: You can write bad code with anything, i don't think the policy of removing nice clean features for complicated less powerful ones to "protect" programmers is a good idea
01:01:27

drdo, it's not protecting the programmer, it's optimization.
01:01:41 It's not an optimization
01:01:58 If you use fexprs like you use macros you have the same expansion at compile time
01:02:54

but I can't be sure that (lambda (f) (f (+ 1 1))) will never be called with a fexpr in some other module.
01:03:26 klutometis: the real killer aspect of the language for me is the emphasis on building the language on top of protocols, a la Art of the Metaobject Protocol. That the fundamental data structures are not hardwired into the language is pretty cool.
01:03:29 Why do you need to be sure of that?
01:03:43

drdo, because the fexpr will get '(+ 1 1), not 2.
01:04:01

a function, instead, will get a 2.
01:04:36 I know, that doesn't answer my question though
01:04:42

so, the compiler can't optimize (+ 1 1) => 2.
01:05:02 If people pass a fexpr like that, they know that it cannot be optimized in that way
01:05:25

no, even if they don't, the compiler can't optimize it anyway.
01:06:01 The compiler can't optimize what?
01:06:17

do constant folding.
01:06:44 -!- pnkfelix [~Adium@184.234.27.169] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:06:54 You can optimize if you use fexprs like you use macros, if you use the power that comes with the fact that they are first class you can't optimize all the time
01:06:54

*you* don't pass a fexpr, what about other modules?
01:07:05

what about other modules?
01:07:16 DT``: Other modules know that if they pass an fexpr that it might not get optimized
01:07:42

but you have to know that other modules do or don't pass a fexpr.
01:07:50

so, again, you need the whole program.
01:08:23 dnolen_: I'll have to take a closer look at protocols; I gathered from a cursory reading of the docs that Protocols are not Interfaces (tm).
01:08:29 Penten [~user@114.255.149.182] has joined #scheme
01:08:38 If you actually care about that, you can have declarations like in CL
01:08:46

(not counting fexprs that may call that function at runtime)
01:09:58

imho, they cause more problems than they solve.
01:13:01 klutometis: yes. but Protocols are relatively new, so there will need to be some shifting around to replace Interfaces with Protocols. Even so, being able to plug in your own list-like thing w/o hassle is incredibly useful.
01:15:27 eholk [~eholk@2620:101:8003:200:e2f8:47ff:fe3e:26e0] has joined #scheme
01:21:12 -!- dherman [~dherman@32.174.255.89] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:25:20 klutometis: https://github.com/clojure/core.logic/blob/master/src/main/clojure/clojure/core/logic/minikanren.clj, I think this won't completely offend Scheme sensibilities. I was also surprised that it can solve the classic Zebra/Einstein puzzle 3X faster than SWI-Prolog. William Byrd, Dan Friedman, & Oleg Kiselyov are clever fellows.
01:25:20 http://tinyurl.com/4yovkyx
01:26:01 -!- MrFahrenheit [~RageOfTho@users-146-61.vinet.ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
01:30:10 jcowan [~John@p-74-209-24-147.dsl1.rtr.chat.fpma.frpt.net] has joined #scheme
01:33:52 -!- smtlaissezfaire [~smtlaisse@user-387hbid.cable.mindspring.com] has quit [Quit: smtlaissezfaire]
01:42:15 pnkfelix [~Adium@c-76-121-97-74.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #scheme
01:48:42 smtlaissezfaire [~smtlaisse@user-387hbid.cable.mindspring.com] has joined #scheme
01:50:43 -!- smtlaissezfaire [~smtlaisse@user-387hbid.cable.mindspring.com] has quit [Client Quit]
01:55:11 DrDuck [~duck@adsl-98-81-129-72.hsv.bellsouth.net] has joined #scheme
02:03:03 -!- pnkfelix [~Adium@c-76-121-97-74.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:10:32 -!- eholk [~eholk@2620:101:8003:200:e2f8:47ff:fe3e:26e0] has quit [Quit: eholk]
02:11:45 smtlaissezfaire [~smtlaisse@user-387hbid.cable.mindspring.com] has joined #scheme
02:12:37 -!- smtlaissezfaire [~smtlaisse@user-387hbid.cable.mindspring.com] has quit [Client Quit]
02:26:38 -!- dnolen_ [~davidnole@pool-68-161-137-73.ny325.east.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: dnolen_]
02:36:30 dralston [~dralston@S0106687f74a12729.va.shawcable.net] has joined #scheme
02:42:14 Riastradh [~riastradh@fsf/member/riastradh] has joined #scheme
02:48:57 eholk [~eholk@63-235-13-3.dia.static.qwest.net] has joined #scheme
02:58:54 -!- tcleval [~funnyguy@187.114.108.195] has quit [Quit: leaving]
03:00:48 kilimanjaro [~kilimanja@unaffiliated/kilimanjaro] has joined #scheme
03:01:15 Owwww... mah sensibilities
03:01:22 Whoppen?
03:01:31 I have been offended completely.
03:01:58 Hmm, by what or whom?
03:02:06 Clojure advocates be sappin' mah channel
03:02:39 I saw the word `fexpr' in the log. Do I want to read more closely?
03:02:43 No.
03:02:48 OK.
03:03:04 I like what little I've seen of Clojure.
03:03:21 almost went to a local Clojure meetup this evening, but as usual I was too pooped
03:03:32 Mutter mutter precious bodily fluids mutter
03:03:48 offby1: The local Clojure meetup here is hosted by one of the big commercial Clojure consultancies. :-P
03:03:53 I liked Clojure in the beginning, but I've lost touch with it.
03:03:56 there is such a thing?
03:04:02 Big commercial... ???
03:04:20 I do not avoid Clojure, Daemmerung; but I do deny it my Scheme-/me fidgets uncomfortably.
03:04:24 heh
03:04:26 Okay, time for me to come clean. I am actually hosted by one of the big commercial Scheme consultancies.
03:04:32 that was supposed to be "scheme-fu"
03:04:45 offby1: http://clojure.com/ The biggest, even
03:05:03 -!- Oddity [~Oddity@unaffiliated/oddity] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:05:07 huh
03:05:12 Ewww. Italic letter in the middle of a roman word. Ewwwwwwwwww.
03:05:22 -!- eholk [~eholk@63-235-13-3.dia.static.qwest.net] has quit [Quit: eholk]
03:05:36 offby1 makes pimpin' look easy
03:05:56 she needs me for her tech fix
03:06:35 She is generous with her Chimay.
03:06:55 Is that the beer, or the cheese, or both?
03:07:05 Oddity [~Oddity@unaffiliated/oddity] has joined #scheme
03:07:08 Never heard of the cheese.
03:07:16 OWWW MAH EYES
03:07:23 *Daemmerung* should have trusted jcowan
03:07:38 dherman [~dherman@c-67-180-182-145.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #scheme
03:07:56 Isn't the cheese named so because it is soaked in the beer?
03:08:28 They have a cheese whose rind is soaked in beer.
03:08:55 mmm
03:09:05 my guess is it's so named because the same monks make it.
03:09:18 But they have three other cheeses which are not, and both cheese and beer are named after the municipality in which the monastery is situated.
03:09:37 bokr [~ed@109.110.36.196] has joined #scheme
03:10:30 Scourmont Abbey, if I recall correctly.
03:10:34 You do.
03:10:44 Daemmerung: What hurts now?
03:11:15 I wanted to see what constitutes a Big Clojure Consultancy.
03:12:45 Evidently a big Clojure consultancy would steal sheep. Well, I'm not sure whether it's not as bad as or worse than letterspacing lowercase, but it's not far off in either case.
03:12:45 -!- dherman [~dherman@c-67-180-182-145.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has left #scheme
03:13:36 So, is it better to steal cheese, or to steal Manchego?
03:13:48 The tobacco industry isn't doing so well, so I'm glad to see former cigarette rollers being put to work in graphic design.
03:13:50 (or more to the point, Abbaye de Belloc.)
03:14:09 Not fond of manchego, jcowan?
03:14:23 Mmmm... Manchego
03:14:37 I am, in fact, fond of it. I mention it because it was the first sheep's-milk cheese I thought of.
03:14:45 I confess to looking up Abbaye de Belloc.
03:14:48 Ah.
03:14:58 And what's more, I misspoke:
03:15:02 s/steal cheese/steal sheep
03:15:19 *Daemmerung* leaves to find cheese (lacking sheep nearby)
03:16:08 'Fraid I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised at either craven action from one who would letterspace lowercase or italicize the middle of a roman word.
03:16:58 Sheep stealing is probably not particularly the act of a craven.
03:17:48 Anyway, *poof*.
03:19:15 Satisfied my cravin' for now.
03:25:33 What is this letterspacing of which you speak? I see no sign of it on Chrome, nor yet in the HTML or CSS.
03:28:44 Something in the stylesheet, perhaps. The tackiness is

Clojure

, no more. Note also inappropriate use of headers tags.
03:34:14 This is the web-dev equivalent of "programmer art." I think I will take note of the glass walls in my own house, and chill.
03:35:52 offby1: I'm at a clojure meetup as we speak, hosted by some startup (Factual, Inc.?); most of the conversation revolves around complexity of mutation and syntax.
03:36:39 Syntax, naturally.
03:36:55 I imagine that at a similar Scheme meetup, there would lord a general STFU about such things; and people would get down to business.
03:37:27 *shrug*
03:37:33 people gonna talk about what interests 'em
03:37:51 -!- dralston [~dralston@S0106687f74a12729.va.shawcable.net] has quit [Quit: leaving]
03:38:21 Impressive organization. Are the E coast meetups also all tonight, too? Giant pincer envelopment of the N American continent.
03:38:59 I should think that at a Clojure meetup there would be a three-sided Goldilocks battle:
03:39:04 too many parens, too few parens, and just right.
03:40:21 jcowan: Glad I caught you, by the way; do you mind submitting to POLA w.r.t. naming R7RS?
03:41:12 Tell me more. Though I hardly see why the Port of Los Angeles should have anything to say in the matter.
03:41:21 eholk [~eholk@63-235-13-3.dia.static.qwest.net] has joined #scheme
03:41:40 Sorry: "Principle of Least Astonishment"; R7RS seems to pessimize astonishment.
03:41:58 Anything else wouldn't have the same pedigree or legitimacy, would it?
03:42:42 (I actually thought you meant "Principle of Least Authority")
03:42:55 (I was holding out for People of Lower Alabama.)
03:43:27 Well, that's just it. By using the name "R7RS", we are strongly suggesting that we are producing something upward compatible with R6RS, as R6RS was with R5RS, R4RS, R3RS, and R2RS.
03:46:06 *jcowan* occasionally reflects, irrelevantly to this conversation, on how hideous it would be to live one's life by the principle of least authority.
03:46:31 jcowan: I like your proposed new names, and I support y'all breaking the RnRS tradition. However, if I recall correctly, every successive iteration of the spec did break certain previous programs. Big lexical breakages in early iterations; subtle dynamic-wind breakages later.
03:46:53 In small ways, yes. And you'll note that I don't go back beyond R2RS in my remark above.
03:47:08 #!true #!false nil
03:47:37 dynamic-wind vs call/cc
03:48:02 *Daemmerung* leaves to find Ashwin Ram's lament about nil
03:48:13 *jcowan* nods.
03:48:34 https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tS3XfMIS7TfMSwMTtd8cbaA&output=html shows how the various standards compare (ignore the last three columns)
03:48:35 http://tinyurl.com/67tvdvs
03:48:46 Well, that didn't take long. "A short ballad dedicated to the growth of programs."
03:48:47 The R6RS columns ignore all innovations.
03:51:22 That spreadsheet only looks backwards. That is, it ignores elements present in old Schemes absent in new. And it doesn't pay attention to semantic changes.
03:54:18 There was substantial flamage over those changes as each new Scheme revision appeared. If, say, R3 had taken a different name, so as not to offend fans of (eq? nil #!false), would that have diminished its legitimacy?
03:57:23 It looks backwards and forwards from R5RS, actually.
03:57:37 And it doesn't handle lexical issues, that's true.
03:57:42 Heaven, I almost forgot the great multiple-value flamage of R5. -- Am I not seeing some of your sheet? I will re-review.
03:59:45 Oh, I follow you now. R5 is your baseline.
04:00:52 Exactly.
04:04:41 -!- pandeiro [~pandeiro@187.105.251.85] has quit [Quit: Thanks, fellas]
04:06:41 Anyway, I posit that no Scheme was upward compatible with its predecessors. Every successive Revised broke valid programs in previous versions of Scheme. The latest iteration merely continues this tradition.
04:08:21 But much more so, relative to R6RS. It massively removes functionality.
04:08:34 It does some of the same things in very incompatible ways.
04:09:12 *Perfect* upward compatibility is nonexistent in PLs generally; even ES5 has breaking changes wrt ES3.
04:09:17 I trust your judgement here. I am only answering your defense of the proposed renaming, above.
04:09:37 Sure, I understand. It's useful to have a sympathetic advocatus diaboli.
04:10:30 -!- jao [~user@pdpc/supporter/professional/jao] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:12:37 Changing the standard naming scheme gives a "Okay, let's rethink this" message, which I believe is on-point.
04:12:57 (It's a cool ballad, although no Scheme has gone to #t-or-#f-only -- yet.)
04:13:20 (But you sure can be compact if you are willing to engage in data punning.)
04:13:28 Poe: "the viol, the violet, and the vine"
04:13:33 Joyce: "vinolent"
04:14:18 I am grateful that the final step - forcing boolean? to conditional tests - was never taken.
04:14:32 smtlaissezfaire [~smtlaisse@user-387hbid.cable.mindspring.com] has joined #scheme
04:14:57 levi` [~user@c-174-52-219-147.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has joined #scheme
04:14:58 *jcowan* shrugs.
04:15:22 I'm glad Java broke backward compatibility with C and C++ in this respect.
04:15:53 So not a Java fan. So I'll take your word for it.
04:16:02 -!- levi [~user@c-174-52-219-147.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:17:06 Classic C blunders like "if (a = b)" for "if (a == b)" can't happen in Java unless a and b are booleans.
04:17:31 jcowan: Doesn't the corpse of ERR5RS serve as a warning to RnRS-orthogonal naming?
04:17:32 -!- aidalgol [~user@114-134-7-23.rurallink.co.nz] has quit [Quit: plonk]
04:17:39 Or maybe ERR5RS was doomed for other reasons.
04:18:27 Only slightly orthogonal.
04:18:35 "Scheme 201x" is really orthogonal.
04:19:17 -!- bombshelter13b [~bombshelt@76-10-149-209.dsl.teksavvy.com] has quit [Quit: If only your veins were filled with oil, the world would rush to your rescue!]
04:20:40 C
04:20:53 jcowan: I forget, did you already reject the asymptotic-approach-to-some-irrational scheme?
04:20:58 C's problem is one of poorly chosen lexemes.
04:21:54 {7.3, 7.38, 7.389, ...} taking e^2; {6.2, 6.28, 6.283, ...} taking 2 * pi.
04:22:00 -!- DrDuck [~duck@adsl-98-81-129-72.hsv.bellsouth.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:22:07 klutometis: What is this, TeX? Anyway, a small number would look like a version number, which is why I don't wnat Scheme 12.
04:22:19 Furthermore, R7RS would be the 8th edition.
04:22:47 *Daemmerung* laughts
04:22:58 *Daemmerung* laughs, too. Also, /me can't type in the dark
04:23:02 Daemmerung: Only partly so. Because "if (x)" means "if (x != 0)", people get in the habit of not testing against zero.
04:25:11 Dammit; 201# feels anachronistic before it's even been specified. Oh, well; all the big languages do it, I guess.
04:25:59 It's never been a problem for me in Scheme: separating empty list from conditional-failure suffices. That's the big pun. C is all about integers (even its characters are integers), so we live with that in its if statements.
04:26:36 -!- copumpkin [~pumpkin@unaffiliated/pumpkingod] has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.]
04:26:44 Not a fan of C++, so I won't try to defend it.
04:26:56 *jcowan* wonders if "float r; if (r)" means "float r; if (r != 0.0)" in C.
04:27:46 jcowan: it seems to
04:27:58 Thanks.
04:28:37 *Daemmerung* doesn't have a C reference handy, and doesn't own one written after 1985, anyway
04:28:51 I wasn't looking at a reference, just gcc + objdump -d :)
04:29:26 what did it generate? test against a fp register, or did it move r into an int register?
04:29:46 4: f3 0f 11 45 fc movss %xmm0,-0x4(%rbp)
04:29:46 9: 0f 57 c0 xorps %xmm0,%xmm0
04:29:47 c: 0f 2e 45 fc ucomiss -0x4(%rbp),%xmm0
04:29:47 thinking about hidden load-store stalls....
04:29:47 that
04:30:03 *jcowan* has never used floating-point in anger, except in languages that only have flonums, like Perl, Basic, and Lua.
04:30:14 (UCOMISS--Unordered Compare Scalar Single-Precision Floating-Point Values and Set EFLAGS)
04:30:23 Thuryago.
04:30:43 *jcowan* has made his bucket list of open-source software to write
04:33:00 nice to see the compiler emitting SSE as default behavior. FINALLY.
04:35:16 (BASIC on the Commodore 64 has (signed, 16-bit) integers ..)
04:36:51 Yeah, there are Basics like that.
04:37:15 What are my Scheme options on the C64?
04:37:52 This language has an annoyingly ungoogleable name.
04:38:17 Daemmerung : the closest i've heard about is (haven't tried those)
04:38:21 *Daemmerung* will name his next language "Stuff"
04:38:56